San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1887-05-04
WEDNESDAY, MAY a, 1887.
DIVISION INEVITABLE.


Gov. Ross defines his position on pro-
hibition and gives his reasons, in a cog
net manner against, for dissenting from
the views of prohibitionists, He says
he will vote against the proposed amend
ment because he considers 1t impolitic,
unwise, and against the genius Of our
free Institutions. He believes that the
people have q right to decide the matter
for themselves and therefore did not
veto the act submitting the amendment.
Gov. Ross is responsible solely to himself
for his own conception of duty as COVER
nor OF Texas. Still, it seems little sin
gular that he should submit to the peo-
pie question of this nature, believing
1t to be, as his letter shows, against the
best interests Of the state. HIS words
of warning to the democracy, not to COM
NIT the sin Of political paricide, come too
late. The dividing wedge has entered
the democratic party Of Texas, in this
divisional movement, and from this date
democracy is divided against herself.
All the pledges and promises of conven-
tions cannot affect this plain statement
OF a fact, of which the evidence is today
as plsin as the sun in the noon day
heavens. The democracy of Texas, as
democrats, in democratic state assem-
bly,, have repudlated the responsibility
OF prohibition or anti-prOhibition move
ments. They have declared that the
whole movement is non-political and
one for which the democracy is in no
wise responsible. All the same-the
conventions Of the prohibitionists at
Waco, and Of the anti-prohibition
lists at Dallas are largely COM
posed OF democrats. The leaders
on both sides are well known
democratic politicians. The result OF
the controversy will be to strengthen
the third party, which has its designs
not only upon the control OF this state,
but upon the national capital. In the
fight thus preoipitated, 1t will be impos-
sible for those who have written and
spoken in favor Of prohibition, as nom
politicians, to take arms against prohibi
ton, as politicians, when 1t comes to a
contest for state officers and members OF
the national congress. The animosities
and bitterness OF this campaign cannot
in the nature Of things be set aside
when the vote is polled in next August.
There is no hope of such thing. The
democrats who have precipitated this
struggle and are forcing this vote upon
the state of Texas, by so doing
have declared that to them prohibition
is dearer thing and nearer than their
democracy. From the logic OF this
statement there Ia no escape now; from
the logic Of the fact there will be no es-
cape in future contests OF the party In
Texas. The prohibitionists will try to
carry this state, must try to carry it at
the next state election, no matter how
the present campaign ends. The nom
prohibitionists will OF necessity antag-
onize this endesvor, and the result will
be in 1888 as in in 1886, there will be two
democrats who will enter the field as
candidates for governor of Texas. One
of them will be prohbitionist the other
an anti-prohibitionist, and between them
will the vote Of the party In Texas be
divided. This will be true of all state
and county officers, because the demoo-
racy Of Texas being divided on this
question of prohibition must necessarily
be divided in their support OF the men
and measures by which the one or the
other of the contending principles must
be made effective.
rur railroada dn pot lilo oonnIno nm